If not for decades of Western - especially the United States' - racism and bigotry, legitimate elected governments would today decide and execute policy not only in Egypt, but probably also in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and other countries whose governments are today effectively Western colonies in the Middle East.

This blog examines the damage being done to hundreds of millions of people in the Middle East by that racism and bigotry.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

I would have written a more secular constitution than Egypt's Constituent Assembly did. I would have, more importantly to me, given an entire committee of elected civilians oversight of Egypt's military budget, establishing at least as much civilian control over the military as exists in the United States. To top that off, I would have written into the constitution that foreign contributions to the military especially from former colonial hegemons such as the United States must be visible to the public.

But I don't vote in Egypt's elections. The people of Egypt do, and all indications are that Egyptians have written and approved by a substantial margin a constitution that fits their values and priorities, rather than Barack Obama's, Juan Cole's, Tom Friedman's values or even my values and priorities.

Cole might say that there should have been more secular representation in the Constituent Assembly. There in that case might exist a difference of opinion between Cole and the people of Egypt over exactly what is the right amount of secular representation in a constitution-writing body. A colonialist would propose that if the people of Egypt and Juan Cole, a US citizen, disagree about what would represent a reasonable distribution of power between secularists and religionists, Cole's position, rather than that of Egypt's voters, should prevail. No reader of this blog by now could be surprised that Juan Cole takes exactly that colonialist position.

But after decades of being ruled on behalf of the government Cole votes for, Egypt is coming to be ruled on behalf of Egypt's voters themselves. That is a great step forward, and the squawking we hear from supposedly liberal and supposedly conservative commentators in the West criticising Egypt's democratic process despite the election results is actually evidence of what a significant step forward it is.

Congratulations to all of the people of Egypt.

Also congratulations to Egypt's Muslim Brothers. They have campaigned or lobbied on the most popular sides of six elections post Mubarak now. The first constitutional amendments, the People's Assembly, the Shura Council, two rounds of Presidential elections and now the constitutional referendum.

The people of Egypt have clearly expressed faith in this group of people to set Egypt's policies. I send them all of my best wishes and hopes that they prove worthy of this faith that they've been shown by the people of Egypt.

Cole had a disagreement with Egypt's elected officials over what constitutes a reasonable amount of secularists in the Egypt's constitution-drafting body. I'm not going to look for a link to that, but a search of this blog of 'cole' and 'constitution' should bring up a clearer example.

>Cole had a disagreement with Egypt's elected officials over what constitutes a reasonable amount of secularists in the Egypt's constitution-drafting body.

In turn you clearly also have disagreements with the turn of events.

>I would have written a more secular constitution than Egypt's Constituent Assembly did. I would have, more importantly to me, given an entire committee of elected civilians oversight of Egypt's military budget, establishing at least as much civilian control over the military as exists in the United States.

However you did not just claim that cole had a disagreement, you claimed that he wants a system where his view should actually be implemented even if the majority of egyptians feel otherwise. Yet the evidence has not been forthcoming.

Arnold, it seems that Tom either pretends or really does not know the being colonialist means to want imperialist states to dictate their will to other states and do as they please.

I have little hope Tom could see colonialism of Cole. Maybe he even thinks that Cole is a great fighter for humanity :)

By the way, now Cole seems to have second thoughts about NATO "saving" Syria, because, you know, it could be bad for Israel if some weapons turned against Israel civilian planes (to down Russian or Iranian planes is probably OK to Cole).And while Cole pays a lot of attention to Egypt, he is conspicuously mum about "liberated" Libya, even though there are some very peculiar developments.

1) Cole posted about Egypt http://www.juancole.com/2013/04/brotherhood-seeking-revenge.html at the end of AprilI cannot find his post on Libya later than this. Could Tom please provide the link of recent Cole post on Libya? (Or was it the stupid post about camel?)Now REALLY interesting news from "democratic' ala NATO Libya http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/libya-gunmen-split-over-demands-sieges-continueJust 1 example2) one more post of Arnold regarding Cole http://mideastreality.blogspot.co.il/2011/11/juan-cole-and-egypts-army-vs-people-of.htmlCole clearly see Egypt military (on USA payroll) as something positive, against the elected MB.3) Cole from the beginning was a cheerleader of NATO bombing of Libya. He repeated all lies about Libya, including "Qaddafi's planes shot on peaceful demos,

Now there http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/syria-crimes-against-humanity-in-homs.html#comments

He said "Because of the Russian and Chinese veto at the UN Security Council, there is no authorization for the use of force by international actors. In the absence of such authorization, the US has been reduced to trying to target individual regime figures for financial sanctions and for prosecution if they ever leave Syria."I.e. Cole would LOVE USA to do with Syria the same as with Libya, but those pesky Russkis are spoiling his fun. Of course, his(?) accusations against Syrian government are of the same quality as about Libya. Also, he does not say a word about REAL role of USA in support for "rebels", much more than what Cole laments as "reduced" options of USA. With Syria Cole keep on with lies about "revolution" and post this, for exhttp://www.juancole.com/2012/10/turkey-slams-un-on-syria-implies-nato-should-act-syria-bans-turkish-airlines.htmlin which he claims "NATO and Europe seem unlikely to pay more than lip service to Turkey’s calls for support in its confrontation with Damascus"(10/14/2012)Now let us what others posted on the same topic at the same time "Turkey has provided its territory as a base of operations for the so-called Free Syrian Army, while allowing the US to set up a CIA command-and-control center in Adana, the southern Turkish city that also hosts the US Incirlik Air Base. From there the CIA coordinates the flow of weapons, materiel, money and foreign fighters to wage a war aimed at toppling the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and replacing it with a more pliant puppet."http://wsws.org/en/articles/2012/10/syri-o04.htmlI.e. NATO (USA) HAD BEEN already in the mess, not a word from Cole about it, of course.

Not mentioning NATO DID send arms and soldiers to Turkey and Jourdan, contrary to Cole "predictions".

Lidia and I are going to get the last words, at least here, if we want. You are allowed to post in this thread one more time, responding to whatever you want, as long as it is of reasonable length. Further posts here by you after that one will be deleted. What you can do, if you want, is put a link in your response to some different website where you can respond further. I'm very unlikely to follow such a link myself, but anyone interested is encouraged to do so.

But if you have a point to make, feel free to make it. Once.

My paragraph above you that snipped a quote from seems very clear to me. Cole believes he is better qualified to decide what a representative body for Egypt's constitutional committee should comprise than Egypt's elected parliament. A committee that fits the preferences of Egypt's elected parliament, rather than Cole's preferences, is "unrepresentative". That's what he wrote. Most Egyptians do not claim the prerogative to decide what composition a US decision making body must have in order to be representative. That's because most Egyptians, unlike Cole (as a typical American), aren't colonialists.

That's what I wrote in December. Nothing you've written makes that any less true now. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but you'll get one more chance to make your point if you choose.

>Cole clearly see Egypt military (on USA payroll) as something positive, against the elected MB.

The link that you posted involved arnold saying that coles influence in regards to the issue of libya is negative.

But cole supported the libyan intervention which as shown by the link above was seen as a good thing by most libyans themselves.

This would show that arnold in this case was mistaken.

The link also seems to have the same problem as this post.

Arnold makes a claim about coles views, but when one actually looks at the original cole post we see that these claims are not accurate.

Arnold again claims that juan believes that his will should be implemented even if the egyptian people feel otherwise.

This again doesnt hold out, when one looks at the post we see that all cole did was give a summery of the views of the different groups involved, in no part did cole claim what arnold suggests he claimed.

>He repeated all lies about Libya, including "Qaddafi's planes shot on peaceful demos

I do recall cole claiming that gaddafi used violence against peaceful protesters, but lidia this claim turned out to be true.

>Security forces greeted the peaceful protests in the eastern cities of Benghazi, Libya’s second city, and al-Bayda with excessive and at times lethal force, leading to the deaths of scores of protesters and bystanders.

> Cole would LOVE USA to do with Syria the same as with Libya, but those pesky Russkis are spoiling his fun.

This is your view but where does juan actually claim that he wants an intervention lidia?

I am sorry, but Tom's 1st "example" of Cole recent post about Libya was about NOT the Libya NOW, but how NATO murdered NOT enough Libyans to bother Cole. It seems that Tom is answering me in bad faith, no wonder.The same is Tom's misreperesenting my other point - about Cole repeating lies of Qaddafi bombing peaceful demos from the warplanes. There was NOT such things, and Cole lied. Period.Not mentioning AI being firmly in a pocket of NATO, one needs only to see how they treat Venezuela democracy versus Honduras(USA) coup.

I short, Tom is not a person one could have a honest discussion with- he twists my words and thinks it is an argument.

Arnold, you are right. Tom is not worth having here :(But I am sure Tom will be welcomed on Cole blog along with Joe from L, to explain us how CIA is NOT providing Al-Qaida in Syria with arms, but on the contrary, filter arms ONLY to "good" rebels. Of course, Joe also believes in Zionist claims, so they would be quite a match.

Arnold, I am afraid Tom simply could not help himself. He seems just not being able to read what me write and answer to what we say. :(So, my link about AI is not for Tom's benefit, it is just interesting

>Arnold, I am afraid Tom simply could not help himself. He seems just not being able to read what me write and answer to what we say. :(

That isnt accurate or fair lidia.

I have been accurately reading your posts.

You can correct me if im wrong but what your claiming is that cole has not been referencing libya, but he has been referencing egypt.

Your view is also that things are worse now in libya than they were and that gaddafi did not use mass violence against unarmed protestors.

Your view is also that ai is biased towards nato.

See lidia, i have been accurately reading your posts, the problem is however your views arent exactly factual.

I pointed out that cole has indeed referenced libya this month.

I then pointed out that investigations have shown that gaddafi did use mass violence.

I then pointed out that your critique of ai wasnt the best due to the errors which you made, implying that ai said nothing about Honduras when in reality it was quite critical. I also pointed out that ai was also been critical of nato.

So you see lidia, i have been accurately reading and responding to your posts.

Honestly it just seems like you are telling yourself an non-truth (that i am not reading your posts correctly) in order to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that your views arent accurate and that you are unable to defend them factually.

Arnold seems to have the same problem, he seems to have misread coles piece and presented a misinterpretation of it, when confronted with this he went into denial and is now attempting censorship for he knows that he cannot challenge comments which pointed out this error.

It seems that Cole DOES posted a new item about Libya...On the other hand - no. Cole only cares about defending his favorite mass-murder aka USA prez form his not-favorite Reps. Anything else is not of interest for Cole, including the plight of "liberated" Libyans.

For ex, http://news.yahoo.com/libyas-benghazi-police-bombed-again-fridays-attack-093647866.html

I wonder, did any big USA media report it? It is really a pity Tom could not defend Cole here, I am sure Tom would explain how Cole really cares about Libya and that in Libya there are a lot of gratitude for NATO bombs :(

Why would Cole need to be defended here, he didnt plant the bombs, he didnt support their planting either.

As pointed out already by previous posts most libyans did support nato strikes. The onus is now on those like lidia to provide evidence that the majority do not.

She has time and time suggested otherwise, but she has never presented evidence for her claims, when something like this occurs it pretty clear that their is no evidence for it isnt true. Now that is something which deserves a sad emoticon face.

So, after two years of mostly silence on Libyan (non)state USA media did posted something - not too early, sure. Cole was a keen and fierce cheerleader for NATO "revolution" in Libya, posting lies (as I have mentioned) to help bring USA "progressives" into support for it. Cole mocked and called names the people who questioned his enthusiasm, and then simply banned them from his cite.So, if he has not planted a bomb himself, he at least as much guilty as Brzezinski for 9/11.Regarding polls - why should I prove something and not pollsters? Should pollster be believed without questioning? I have given in another place the example of a poll from post-Saddam Iraq, also with happy majority. The poll had been done before the hell of NATO "liberation" turned into even worser hell of occupation. I wonder, who would NOW cite the Iraq poll.

Arnold and others, including me, had told that NATO "revolution" in Libya would turn it into new Afghanistan. It seems that we are been proved right even faster than we thought. A terrible development. Worth much more than "sad face".

However coles viewpoint is backed by investigations from a number of human rights groups, cole basically has evidence for his claim, you do not.

A court would obviously side with the person with evidence for his or hers view.

Claiming that these groups are biased and that their claims are wrong isnt enough, character assassination isnt enough, you would have to show that the investigations themselves are wrong and provide evidence for this, you have not done this.

Whats more you still have to provide evidence that gaddafi didnt do what was claimed.

The court would have no choice but to consider you to be the untruthful one in this situation.

"Regarding polls - why should I prove something and not pollsters?"

Pollsters do provide evidence, the claims they make are the result of scientific polls which come under scrutiny and which can be looked at and compared to other polls.

You however have made a claim and in turn failed to provide a reference for this claim. You seem to think that over 51% of libyans feel that the intervention was wrong, but how can we believe this to be true when you havent provided evidence for this, and the only evidence available so far has found the opposite.

A court of law example would be handy here again and please imagine yourself serving as a juror.

Two people have different views, one provides evidence for their view, the other does not, who would you believe?

Obviously the one who provided the evidence.

This is what we have here in regards to libya, there is evidence to show that over 51% of libyans feel the intervention is right.

There is no evidence to show that 51% think the opposite.

Just like those involved in a court case we have to go with the side that has evidence and not the side that makes mere claims.

Your iraq example seems to rest on the idea that most iraqis at the time of the poll felt that the invasion was wrong but the poll didnt show this, do you have evidence for this?

Also those interested in the views of the iraqis throughout the years would have no problems citing the poll as long as they point out the year the poll was taken and highlighted other polls which were taken afterwards to show the gradual change of iraqi opinion into an unhappy iraq majority.

The idea that libya is a new Afghanistan also doesnt really hold out, both countries definitely have their problems but there isnt a mass foreign presence in libya along the lines of Afghanistan for example.

Also even after all the years of terrible conflict, once more the information about the topic tends to show that the afghan people themselves are better off since the taliban overthrow, so Afghanistan isnt a very good example to berate libya.

Long post but feel free to reply, especially with evidence to back up your views.

Long post but I am NOT going to read it, sorry, because Samuel (?) is NOT writing it in good faith either. His words:

"You think gaddafi didnt launch abuses against unarmed civilians, cole believes that he did." are the gross misrepresenting of my clear and simple post on the same topic as everyone with an eye and a bit of honesty could see for oneself.I am not going to deal with a person who starts with twisting of my words posted on the same page. Sorry, but I have no taste for discussing with such "opponents"

PSI wonder, is it pure coincidence than both "Tom" and "Samuel" used the same spin of my words and facts, or is it a modus operandi for Cole's defenders, or ...

A licensed Loan Lender, We offer Affordable Loan at 3% interest rate available for local and international borrowers, Are you seriously interested in getting a genuine Loan without stress? Do you need this Loan for business and to clear your bills? Then send us an email now for more details via:(majidvijahlending@gmail.com),,,